Kerala High Court
Joy Abraham vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25833 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
JOY ABRAHAM,
S/O.ABRAHAM, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDI P.O.,
KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685515.
BY ADV SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO CIVIL SUPPLIES,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, UDUMBANCHOLA
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685554.
BY ADV SMT.VIDYAKURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25833 OF 2012 -2-
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
"A] A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P4 order with
direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the
matter based on the actual need of Vellayamkudy
Area in Kattappana Grama Panchayath.
B] A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the 1 st & 2nd
respondents to take action against the 3rd respondent
for misleading and furnishing false details in the
check list submitted by him in support of the
recommendation suppressing material facts.
C] A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the 1 st and 2nd
respondents to open a new ARD shop at
Vellayamkudy in Kattapana Grama Panchayath in
Idukki District within a time fixed by this Hon'ble
Court.
D] Any other appropriate writ, order or directions
as this Hon'ble court deem fit on the fact and in the
circumstances of the case and allow this petition with
cost."
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order because the
Director of Civil Supplies rejected the request of the
petitioner for opening a new retail ration shop at
Vellayamkudi in Kattappana Grama Panchayath, Idukki
District.
2. According to the petitioner the second
respondent without conducting a proper enquiry,
rejected the proposal based on a check list which is
produced as Ext.P5. The case of the petitioner is that the
essential service of the ration is now denied to the
petitioner and others for the no fault of them. Hence this
writ petition.
3. When this writ petition came up for
consideration this Court directed the Government Pleader
to get instruction about the further development after
Ext.P4 order and find out whether any ARD is sanctioned
in that area and whether there is any chance to start a
new ARD in this particular area because Ext.P4 is an order
dated 27.08.2012.
4. The learned Government Pleader after getting
instructions submitted that within two kilometers from
this place there are about six ration shops. The
Government Pleader also submitted that there is no
chance for starting a new ARD in this area. When such a
stand is taken by the respondents, this Court may not be
able to issue any direction to the respondents to start a
new ARD.
In the light of the above submissions this writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
vv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25833/2012
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.III
(II) DATED 4.9.2010 OF THE KATTAPANA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR 17-02-2011
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMEDATION OF
THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 15-12-
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-08-
2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK LIST
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE PROPOSAL
FOR NEW RATION SHOP
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN
BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, UDUMBANCHOLA
DATED 16.10.2012
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY
THE PETITIONER FROM KATTAPPANA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH DATED 22-10-2012
